Saddam Signs Directive of War Against US Commandos & Kurds in N. Iraq

Q108. "Who has the power to declare war?"

A. The Constitution clearly grants the Congress the power to declare war, in Article 1, Section 8. The President, however, is just as clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. That having been said, the ability to defend the nation or to take military action has often not involved the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.

What this has resulted in is the essential ability of the President to order forces into hostilities to repel invasion or counter an attack, without a formal declaration of war. The conduct of war is the domain of the President.

The question of the need for a declaration of war dates all the way back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson sent a squadron of warships to the Mediterranean to protect U.S. shipping against the forces of the Bey of Tripoli. Jefferson's instructions to the squadron were that they act in a defensive manner only, with a strictly defined order of battle. When a Tripolitan cruiser shot at a U.S. ship, the U.S. forces seized the ship, disarmed it, and released it. Jefferson's message to Congress on the incident indicated that he felt the acts to be within constitutional bounds. Alexander Hamilton wrote to Congress and espoused his belief that since the United States did not start the conflict, the United States was in a state of war, and no formal declaration was needed to conduct war actions. Congress authorized Jefferson's acts without declaring war on the Bey.

Not all acts of war, however, need place the United States into a state of war. It is without doubt an act of war to fire upon a warship of another nation. In 1967, during the Six Day War, Israel attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence ship operating off the Sinai coast. But the United States did not react as though it were at war, even though many considered the attack deliberate (both Israel and the U.S. later determined the attack to have been a mistake caused by the cloud of war).

It may be correct to say, then, that an act or war committed against the United States can place the United States into a state of war, if the United States wishes to see the act in that light. A declaration of war by the Congress places the Unites States at war without any doubt. Absent a declaration of war, the President can react to acts of war in an expedient fashion as he sees fit.

The question of the need for a declaration of war dates all the way back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

It was a LONG time before that and you really should read the material in both Farrand and the Federalist to know how far (consider the discussion of the Pelleponesian War therein). No, with all due respect to Mr. Decateur's heroics, the actions of Jefferson are USED as the precedent they should never have been. He had plenty of time to make the case for a declaration of war and gravely wounded the Constitution in the process. For all his inspiring prose about the price of liberty, Mr. Jefferson's record in war was spotty at best, especially as governor of Virginia.

What does that have to do with the "requirement" that congress mut declare war before military action can be taken? There is absolutely NO requirement in the constitution there is only the vested power to do so if congress wishes to assert it. There is also no language that the congress must use to declare war. You are in a round room looking for a corner.

We are still technically at war with Iraq. We have a cease fire agreement going, not a peace treaty. Congress declared a state of war for the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq and that declaration is still in force.

Congress technically declared an official state of war against Iraq? Since when? Care to provide me a link with the text of the declaration, when it was made, who voted on it, etc etc?

Last I heard, Congress hasn't made a formal declaration of war since World War II. It's a shame they don't have the will or guts to make a declaration now...

There is absolutely NO requirement in the constitution there is only the vested power to do so if congress wishes to assert it.

You are saying that the Constitution doesn't prevent the President from doing that. That is not the logical requirement (as much as you would like it to be). There are all kinds of things it doesn't specifically list that are still unconstitutional. The constitution is a limiting document. It describes powers. All other powers are reserved to the people. It doesn't list the power to initiate an act of war as among those of the President. Bombing an aspirin factory is not on the list. If the Constitution doesn't say that he can do it, HE CAN'T, not the converse.

In the case of the action against the Barbary Pirates, when US ships were fired upon, they had the right of defense. When Jefferson issued an order to send an expeditionary force to Tripoli, he should have had a declaration of war. That he got away with it, has been used to expand executive powers ever since, such as we saw with Beelzebubba.

Read the book for what it says instead of looking for loopholes.

Did you ever read the damn thing?

Article II
Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The only qualifier that I see is that the President is not in command of the militia unless they are called to the service of the national government.

Title should've included "DEBKA". That way I wouldn't have wasted a click.

Regarding your posts above, well said.

Thank you. I have had the great good fortune to read the entirety of Farrand's notes, the most extraordinary debate on theories of government in human history. It led me to understand structures of checks and balances such that I could design free-market architectures capable of replacing civic regulatory functions.

The police power to control the use of private property exceeds any authority granted by the Constitution. It immediately induces an interests on the part of civic agencies adverse to their mandates. There is no doubt however, that civil society has a rational claim for an owner to account for distributed risks associated with their operations. Civil means to manage such competing claims and intangible risks are therefore necessary. If you asked me what were the necessary structural changes needed from Congress, I would tell you tort reform and insurance deregulation.

It immediately induces interests on the part of civic agencies adverse to their mandates.

Sorry.

Saddam Signs Directive of War Against US Commandos & Kurds in N. Iraq

Well the UN and the Int'l Court can't accuse us of starting anything in Iraq, since Saddam declared war on us. Not that I give a damn waht the UN and the Int'l Court think.

Well, Saddam can always play his deck of race cards:

Anti-Arab
Anti-Moslem
Anti-Thirdworld
Anti-People-of-Color

and last, but not least

Anti-His buddy, Colin Powell...

Hell, Bush is damn near illiterate.

His SAT verbal was 566. What's yours?

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

And the Hizbullah/Alqaeda confab in beirut recently confirmed by the mass media.

Also, the transfer of US assets to non Saudi bases was first reported in Debka way before the NYT etc reported it.

Each unit must fight as though no outside help were available!

HAR!! That's just great for morale, ain't it?
Sounds like the Japs on Iwo Jima..................Dead meat!

you still here? Steve Hamel 919 753 8750